British Journal of Management, Vol. *, *–* (2007)
DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-8551.2007.00533.x
You Stab My Back, I’ll Stab Yours:
Management Experience and Perceptions
of Organization Political Behaviour
David A. Buchanan
Cranfield University, School of Management, Cranfield, Bedfordshire MK43 0AL, UK
Email: David.Buchanan@Cranfield.ac.uk
This paper reports the findings of a survey of 250 British managers, exploring their
experience and perceptions of organization politics. Political behaviour appeared to be
common. Most managers viewed political behaviour as ethical and necessary, and
aspects of organizational effectiveness, change, resourcing and reputation were
attributed to political tactics, although 80% had no training in this area. Tactics
experienced frequently included networking, using ‘key players’ to support initiatives,
making friends with power brokers, bending the rules, and self-promotion. Tactics
experienced as rare, but not unknown, included misinformation, spreading rumours, and
keeping ‘dirt files’ for blackmail. A consistent pattern of responses concerning
willingness to engage in politics, the need to act ruthlessly and the appropriateness of
reciprocity when faced with political behaviour implies an attitude of ‘you stab my back,
I’ll stab yours’. Findings are discussed using an ‘antecedents–behaviours–consequences’
framework of perceived organization politics to guide research.
The knowledge gap
Organization politics are a reality in most organizations, and while game-playing might outwardly
appear to be wasted time, it is necessary in order to
secure resources, progress ideas, achieve personal
goals and often to enhance one’s standing. It is
naive to realistically expect to be able to stand aloof
from organization politics. You may be respected
for doing so, but your progress will be limited and
you will be seen as an easy target. (Middle manager,
manufacturing, male, age 40–49)
Ferris et al. (1996, p. 262) argue that the field of
organization politics remains largely unexplored,
particularly with regard to subjective experience.
Studies of perceptions of politics suggest the
pervasiveness of such behaviour along with
ambivalence towards this aspect of the management role. However, little is known about British
managers’ perceptions of organization politics.
The focus of this study thus lies with the
r 2007 British Academy of Management
management experience, exploring the perceived
implications for organizational change, individual performance, reputation and career. Has the
significance of political behaviour been diluted by
the values of openness, honesty and integrity, and
through the advocacy of teamwork and compassionate, ethical leadership? The politicized nature
of change is widely recognized (Dawson, 2003;
Frost and Egri, 1991; Pettigrew, 1973), but the
role of organization politics in change agency is
controversial. Voyer (1994) and Peled (1999)
argue for relevance, Ferris and King (1991) and
Stone (1997) argue for avoidance, Kumar and
Thibodeaux (1990) link the intensity of political
activity to scale of change, and Cobb (1986)
advocates a diagnostic approach to organization
development interventions. One aim of this
research, therefore, is to explore British managers’ perceptions of these issues. A second aim is
to identify further lines of enquiry, through
developing a framework linking the perceived
antecedents of organization politics, through
2
political tactics, to perceived consequences. Most
previous research on perceptions of organization
politics is rooted in a positivist perspective,
seeking to develop a generalizable model of the
triggers, nature and outcomes of political behaviour. This study, in contrast, is based on a
constructivist perspective. The resultant ‘antecedents–behaviours–consequences’ framework thus
reflects the interpretation of these links as they
are perceived by respondents. This framework
does not represent an empirically testable model
in a positivist sense, but instead codifies the
‘actor-theory-in-use’ of the management respondents in this study.
The lack of evidence may be attributed to the
sensitive nature of the topic, inhibiting research
access and candid responses. Madison et al.
(1980) advise researchers to cloak the term with
an appropriate euphemism, as it is ‘too sensitive
for use in direct investigations’. In feeding back
to management her analysis of internally
authored and politically motivated accounts of
change, depicting the company’s organization
development function in a pivotal light, O’Connor’s (1995) management contact described her
account as shocking, outrageous and unacceptable, and never met with her again. A further
inhibitor may lie with language. ‘Machiavellian’
is an insult, not a compliment, implying the use of
cunning, devious, manipulative, underhand tactics. Calhoon (1969) describes political tactics as
‘unsavoury’. Keen (1981) observes that politics is
equated with ‘evil, corruption, and blasphemy’.
Ferris and King (1991) describe politicized
decision-making as ‘a walk on the dark side’,
echoed in Egan’s (1994) ‘shadow side’ of management. Chanlat (1997) describes politics as a
‘social disease’. It is hardly surprising that Jackall
(1988) criticizes the ‘emotional aridity’ of managers who compromise a caring ethic by playing
political games.
Field research in this area is thus problematic.
Organization gatekeepers may dismiss requests to
explore company politics; managers may not
reveal tactics to strangers who will publish their
findings. These issues have been addressed using
safe research methods such as self-report questionnaires (Gandz and Murray, 1980; Vigoda,
2003), student respondents (Drory and Romm,
1988) and indirect studies of work attitudes and
stress in university employees (Ferris et al., 1996).
The study reported here used a survey instrument
D. A. Buchanan
but was based on a constructivist-interpretive
epistemology concerned not with measurement
and covariation but with understanding how
constructs and relationships are experienced and
perceived by respondents.
Terminology, evidence, theory
The literature of organizational power and
politics is extensive, and is broadly divided
between macro- and micro-political approaches
(Vigoda, 2003). Macro perspectives address
structural bases of organizational power and the
role of coalitions in promoting collective agendas
(Bacharach and Lawler, 1981; Hickson et al.,
1971; Pettigrew and McNulty, 1995; Pfeffer,
1992). Dominated by a positivist perspective,
micro approaches focus on individual behaviour,
relationships and perceptions (Burns, 1961; Ferris et al., 1996; Gandz and Murray, 1980;
Kacmar and Ferris, 1991; Perrewé et al., 2000).
Exploring perceptions of middle and senior
managers, the research reported here adopts a
micro approach, and the following overview
focuses on three aspects of the relevant literature.
The first concerns definitions of organization
politics. The second concerns studies of the
subjective experience of politics. Third, theoretical implications are considered, with regard to
the perceived antecedents or triggers, behaviours
or tactics, and consequences or outcomes of political behaviour. This ‘antecedents–behaviours–
consequences’ framework is subsequently used to
explore the implications of the findings of this
study.
Terminology
The absence of a common definition of organization politics is a long-standing concern, and
commentators continue to note the lack of agreement (Drory and Romm, 1990; Ferris et al.,
2002a). Kacmar and Carlson (1997, p. 656)
argue that ‘Only when consensus is reached
about what organizational politics is and how it
should be measured will the field be advanced’.
Points of contention concern distinguishing
‘political’ from ‘non-political’ actions, the treatment of self-interest as a defining characteristic,
and the inevitably damaging nature of politics.
Allen et al. (1979, p. 77) define politics as ‘acts of
You Stab My Back, I’ll Stab Yours
influence to enhance or protect the self-interest of
individuals or groups’. Mintzberg (1983, p. 172,
1985) defines politics as ‘individual or group
behaviour that is informal, ostensibly parochial,
typically divisive, and above all, in the technical
sense, illegitimate – sanctioned neither by formal
authority, accepted ideology, nor certified expertise’. Valle and Perrewé (2000, p. 361) regard
political behaviour as ‘the exercise of tactical
influence which is strategically goal directed,
rational, conscious and intended to promote
self-interest, either at the expense of or in support
of others’ interests’.
There are problems with the definition features
involving influence, self-interest and damage.
First, as Mangham (1979) and Astley and
Sachdeva (1984) observe, all routine social
exchanges entail mutual influence, and every
interaction could thus be interpreted as political.
An influence-based definition, therefore, does not
readily distinguish political from non-political
behaviour. Indeed, attribution theory suggests
that it is important for managers to avoid having
their actions labelled with political intent, and it
may be necessary to create the impression that
goals are selfless and non-political. Successful
manipulation may be that which attracts attributions of legitimate motives (Allen et al., 1979,
p. 82). Ferris et al. (2000, p. 30) thus define
political skill as ‘an interpersonal style construct
that combines social astuteness with the ability to
relate well, and otherwise demonstrate situationally appropriate behaviour in a disarmingly
charming and engaging manner that inspires
confidence, trust, sincerity, and genuineness’.
Ferris et al. (2002b, p. 111) suggest that skilled
political actors are those who are able to disguise
their self-serving intent. A second problem is that
political tactics can be used to promote either or
both individual and organizational interests
(Buchanan, 1999; Harrison, 1987). If political
tactics can generate corporate benefit as well as
personal gain, then definitions that regard only
overtly self-interested acts as categorically political are unhelpful.
A third related issue concerns the widespread
portrayal of organization politics in negative
terms. Klein (1988, p. 1) argues that the claim
that organizations are political is ‘a myth
propagated and entertained to address various
needs of organizational members’. Accepting this
myth makes it self-perpetuating, and political
3
behaviour should instead be eliminated. Eisenhardt and Bourgeois (1988) argue that political
behaviour in a top management team is associated with poor performance, by creating
inflexibilities and communication barriers, restricting information flows, and consuming time.
Zaleznik (1997) distinguishes between ‘psychopolitics’ and ‘real work’. Personnel decisions,
such as selection and performance evaluation,
should be depoliticized, according to Ferris and
King (1991). Ferris and Kacmar (1992) discuss
‘destructive opportunism and dysfunctional game
playing’. Voyer’s (1994, p. 84) study of a
computer company concluded that politics were
‘mostly dysfunctional’ and that management
should ‘step in and reduce the level of politics’.
According to Stone (1997), eradicating organization politics is a management duty.
Some commentators, however, argue that
politics are useful. Mangham (1979, p. 16)
observes that reasonable people often disagree,
with regard to both ends and means, and can thus
be expected ‘to fight for what they are convinced
is right and, perhaps more significantly, against
that which they are convinced is wrong’. Butcher
and Clarke (1999) view politics as ‘battles over
just causes’, in which debate sharpens the quality
of decisions. Gandz and Murray (1980) found
that organization politics was considered functional in terms of careers and power-building.
Harrison (1987) argues that political behaviour
can be used to counter the use of legitimate
tactics to achieve undesirable ends, and to help
implement decisions reached by legitimate means.
Frost and Egri (1991) argue that political
struggles play a role in resolving competing
perspectives and interests in the context of organizational changes. McClelland and Burnham
(1995) distinguish between institutional (socialized) and personal uses of power, the latter for
personal gain, the former in the interests of group
and corporate goals, potentially involving selfsacrifice. For Keen (1981) and Hardy (1996),
organizational power and politics provide the
dynamic for the implementation of strategic
change. The history of conflicting interests,
alignments and negotiations, argue Bacharach
and Lawler (1998), is the history of change. For
Provis (2004, p. 233) the widely varied circumstances of political behaviour mean that the claim
‘politics is always bad’ is ‘an easy view that we
can set aside’.
4
The debates concerning terminology and the
functional or dysfunctional properties of organization politics arise in a positivist perspective,
concerned with operationalizing core concepts,
developing valid and stable measures, establishing covariation and building generalizable models. From a constructivist perspective, the
definitions and assessments that matter are those
of organizational members.
Subjective experience
What is already known about the subjective
experience of organization politics? In one of the
first studies in this field, Gandz and Murray
(1980) found from their survey of 400 American
managers that 90% regarded politics as commonplace, and 89% said that executives had to be
skilled politicians. However, 55% said that
politics impeded efficiency, and 50% argued that
management should eliminate politics. Allen
et al. (1979; Madison et al., 1980) interviewed
87 senior and middle managers from 30 Californian electronics companies. Political tactics mentioned most frequently were blaming others,
selective information, creating a favourable image, developing support, ingratiation, creating
obligations, rewards, coercion and threats, associating with influential individuals, and forming
powerful coalitions. In addition, 60% of respondents said that political behaviour was either
‘frequent’ or ‘very frequent’. While 60% agreed
that political behaviour can advance careers,
respondents were unanimous that politics can
harm individuals, through loss of job, power,
strategic position and credibility. However, 45%
claimed that politics impeded goal achievement,
and a third claimed that politics resulted in the
misuse of resources. Given this blend of outcomes, Madison et al. (1980, p. 93) describe
politics as a ‘two-edged sword’.
Drory and Romm (1988) asked 156 employees
(also Israeli university and college students) to
assess the political nature of 15 critical influencing incidents, based on ‘definitional elements’ of
politics, including informality, conflict, acting
against the organization, power attainment, and
concealed motives (see Drory and Romm, 1990).
The argument that all behaviour is political was
not supported. Formal influence attempts, and
the presence of conflict, were not necessarily seen
as political (conflict can be resolved by other
D. A. Buchanan
means). Perception of behaviour as political
appeared to depend on characteristics of the
situation and the observer; managers perceived
those definition elements as less political than
employees in non-supervisory positions.
Exploring links between organization politics
and job attitudes, Drory (1993) surveyed 200
supervisors and employees in five Israeli organizations. Pilot interviews with 25 employees were
used to develop a measure of ‘political climate’
based on key decisions affecting task and budget
allocations, performance appraisals and organization structure, and survey respondents were
asked to indicate whether these decisions were
influenced by political factors. The findings
suggest that lower status employees, lacking the
power and influence to benefit from ‘the political
game’, view politics as frustrating, but higher
status employees did not associate politics with
job dissatisfaction. Drory argues that political
behaviour is an entrenched organizational feature, that in some circumstances this may be an
appropriate aspect of decision-making, that
negative outcomes cannot always be avoided,
and that further research into political consequences is required.
Ferris and Kacmar (1992) report two studies
linking perceptions of politics to contextual and
personal factors. The first involved 264 managers
and employees from three organizations. A
‘perception of politics’ measure included the
incidence of favouritism, keeping the boss happy,
avoiding criticism, and forming ‘in groups’.
Those at lower levels perceived a higher degree
of politics than those at higher levels, and the
perception that the workplace was political was
again associated with job dissatisfaction. The
second study involved 95 hospital nurses and
their supervisors, who completed a questionnaire
measuring organization politics, job satisfaction,
job and work environment factors, and personal
influences. Findings suggest that politics can have
positive individual and organizational consequences. The authors conclude that research
should adopt a neutral perspective, exploring
links between political proficiency and job- and
career-related rewards (Ferris and Kacmar, 1992,
p. 113). However, using a Machiavellian personality assessment (the ‘Mach IV’ from Christie and
Geiss, 1970), Graham (1996) found that ‘high
Mach’ managers did not have more successful
careers (defined by salary) than ‘low Machs’.
You Stab My Back, I’ll Stab Yours
Ferris et al. (1996) explore the links between
politics and dissatisfaction, anxiety and stress,
using a questionnaire returned by over 800 nonacademic university employees. Perceptions were
measured using a 40-item scale with items such as
‘favouritism rather than merit determines who
gets ahead around here’ and ‘I have seen changes
made in policies that only serve the purposes of a
few individuals’. Centralization (concentrating
power at the top) was positively related to
perceptions of politics, and formalization (reducing uncertainty and ambiguity) was negatively
related. Those who saw their organization as
highly political showed higher levels of anxiety
and lower satisfaction with both job and supervision. Lower level employees, and those who
rated their career opportunities as low, perceived
higher levels of politics, and male respondents
saw more political behaviour than female. Little
is known about gender differences in organization politics. However, from her interview study
of 55 senior female American managers, Mainiero (1994, p. 19) found that, while most initially
denied that political skill had contributed to their
career success, they had actually progressed by
experience through a ‘seasoning process’, following which they were practising ‘political skill at a
very high and subtle level’.
Our understanding of perceptions of politics
thus relies primarily on surveys of mixed occupational groups of American and Israeli employees
and managers. The evidence suggests that, while
the incidence of behaviours perceived to be
political is high and political tactics are seen to
generate both positive and negative individual
and organizational outcomes, most managers
dislike this dimension of their role.
Theoretical implications
Ferris and Kacmar (1992) argue that organization politics is a relatively under-theorized field.
Bacharach and Lawler (1998) note that the
literature is fragmented, with commentators
adopting unique perspectives, with no core set
of problems to form the basis for theoretical
debate. Consequently, there is no cumulative
tradition leading to the development of a
‘political theory of organizations’. Perhaps the
most influential perspective in this regard has
been the model of perceptions of organization
politics developed by Ferris et al. (2002a, p. 235),
5
hypothesizing how a range of outcomes, such as
satisfaction, withdrawal, trust, performance and
citizenship, depend on perceptions of politics that
in turn depend on a range of organizational,
environmental, demographic and personality
factors. That model, and commentary reviewed
here, reflects an ‘antecedents–behaviours–consequences’ framework, linking triggering or precipitating conditions, with political tactics or
strategies, to a range of individual and organizational outcomes. Conceptualizing this approach
in a simplified three-step framework facilitates
comparisons between positivist studies of perceptions of politics and the constructivist perspective
adopted in this research. Thus, while the model of
Ferris et al. (2002a) seeks to identify a generalizable set of causal links, the framework developed through the study reported here seeks
instead to codify how the links between antecedents, political behaviours and consequences
are understood by organization managers.
While most perspectives attribute political
behaviour to the pursuit of self-interest, Chanlat
(1997) argues that triggers also lie with personal
ambition, the prevalence of unstructured problems (which cannot be resolved through simple
decision rules), and structural differentiation
(generating competition for resources). The contingency model of Kumar and Thibodeaux (1990)
locates the triggers of political behaviour with the
significance of organizational change. First-level
change in this model involves improving effectiveness. Second-level change involves the introduction of new perspectives. Third-level change
concerns organization-wide shifts in values and
working practices. The more significant the
change and its implications, the greater the
political involvement required by the change
agent. Kumar and Thibodeaux thus argue that,
while first- and second-level changes require
political awareness and facilitation respectively,
third-level change entails political intervention,
which may involve stimulating debate, gaining
support from key groups, and covert manipulation (tactics which they accept may be ‘ethically
objectionable’ but which reflect the ‘distasteful
reality’ of organization politics).
Ferris and Kacmar (1992), Drory (1993) and
Ferris et al. (1996) variously attempt to model
links between perceptions of political behaviour
and consequences for job attitudes. Allen et al.
(1979), Madison et al. (1980) and Ferris and
6
D. A. Buchanan
Kacmar (1992), along with Kumar and Thibodeaux (1990), identify political tactics which
potentially lead to individual and organizational
consequences. Perrewé et al. (2000) argue that
political skill, through improving interpersonal
control and feelings of efficacy and self-confidence, reduces management role stress.
Table 1 summarizes the strands of this
commentary concerning reported antecedents or
triggers of organization politics, the behaviours
or tactics deployed, and the consequences or
outcomes, and is based on Allen et al. (1979),
Mangham (1979), Madison et al. (1980), Gandz
and Murray (1980), Keen (1981), Harrison
(1987), Drory and Romm (1988), Eisenhardt
and Bourgeois (1988), Drory and Romm (1990),
Kumar and Thibodeaux (1990), Ferris and King
(1991), Frost and Egri (1991), Ferris and Kacmar
(1992), Drory (1993), Voyer (1994), McClelland
and Burnham (1995), Ferris et al. (1996), Hardy
(1996), Chanlat (1997), Stone (1997), Bacharach
and Lawler (1998), Buchanan (1999), Butcher
and Clarke (1999), Mainiero (1994), Ferris et al.
(2000), Perrewé et al. (2000), Ferris et al. (2002a,
p. 235), Vigoda (2003) and Provis (2004). A
distinction is made between individual and
contextual antecedents, suggesting that political
behaviour can be triggered by factors other than
self-interest. The summary of reported tactics
indicates a broad behaviour repertoire. The
individual and organizational consequences,
functional and dysfunctional, are also varied.
While this tabulation implies testable causal links
across the framework, it is not presented in
support of such claims. Rather, this tabulation
serves, first, to illustrate the range of potential
Table 1. Reported antecedents, behaviours and consequences of organization politics (literature summary)
Antecedents of political behaviour
Individual
Personality and demographic factors
To achieve self-serving ends; self-interest
Ambition
Pursuit of concealed motives
Desire to convey appearance of
selflessness
Desire to attract attributions of legitimacy
Contextual
Structural and environmental factors
To protect and achieve group interests
Conflicting views and interests
Scale and significance of (third level) change
Unstructured problems and decisions
Structural differentiation
Behaviours, political strategies, tactics
Informal influence
Selective information
Gaining and developing support
Ingratiation
Associating with influential individuals
Favouritism
Keeping your boss happy
Avoiding criticism
Functional
Individual
Inspire confidence, trust, sincerity
Increased self-confidence, reduced stress
Power building
Career advancement
Organizational
Support for desirable policies
Oppose undesirable policies
Counter legitimate tactics used to achieve
illegitimate ends
Help implement legitimate decisions
Resolve conflict between competing views
Improve quality of decision making
Create dynamic for strategic change
Blame others
Creating a favourable image
Creating obligations
Rewards, coercion, threat
Forming powerful coalitions
Stimulating debate
Covert manipulation
Forming ‘in-groups’
Consequences of uses of political behaviour
Dysfunctional
Individual
Frustration, anxiety, job dissatisfaction
Individual harm through job loss
Loss of strategic position and power
Damaged credibility
Organizational
Dysfunctional game-playing
Impede efficiency
Block goal attainment
Misuse of resources
Create inflexibilities
Raise communication barriers
Restrict information flows
Waste time
You Stab My Back, I’ll Stab Yours
antecedents, behaviours and consequences of
political behaviour, and second, as a basis for
comparison with ‘actor-theory-in-use’ concerning
perceived antecedents, behaviours and consequences as these appear to be understood by
respondents in the research reported here.
Research orientation and method
This research is based on a qualitative constructivist–interpretivist orientation (Deetz, 1996) involving four points of contrast with previous
quantitative positivist studies of perceptions of
organization politics. First, as indicated earlier,
political behaviour is a socially constructed
phenomenon (Ferris et al., 2002a, p. 211), and
researcher-derived definitions are thus of secondary importance to the definitions and interpretations of respondents. Second, as behaviour only
becomes ‘political’ when actors or observers label
it as such, a constructivist orientation rejects the
distinction between perceptions of politics and
actual political behaviour (Ferris et al., 2002a;
Valle and Perrewé, 2000; Vigoda, 2003). The
operationalization of actual political behaviour
in the positivist tradition relies on the influence
tactics identified by Kipnis et al. (1984). This
means that, for example, ‘rational appeal’ (providing information), ‘assertiveness’ (giving an
order) and ‘exchange’ (swapping favours) are
categorically political behaviours, although actors in a given context may not always understand or label those actions in that way. The same
argument applies to the categorical distinction
between ‘proactive’ and ‘reactive’ defensive political behaviours (Valle and Perrewé, 2000). Other
commentary (e.g. Buchanan and Badham, 1999;
Schrijvers, 2004) suggests that managers use a
range of methods for distracting, subverting,
delegitimating, blocking, delaying, networking,
positioning, coalition building, outmanoeuvring
and otherwise promoting initiatives at the expense of others in addition to more conventional
influence tactics. Third, the survey approach
adopted for this study makes no claims to
develop ‘valid and stable measures’ of key
constructs. Instead, the objective is to explore
patterns in experiences and perceptions, in order
to develop a better understanding of how
managers view and interpret political behaviour,
its triggers and its outcomes. Echoing Mohr’s
7
(1982) critique of variance perspectives in organizational behaviour, a constructivist orientation
suggests that measures of ambiguous and socially
constructed phenomena, such as organization
politics, are invariably unstable, and that observed patterns may only apply to particular
respondent groups for a limited time. Fourth, this
constructivist approach seeks to codify the ‘actortheory-in-use’ of management respondents, and
not to develop a general causal model.
Consequently, this paper reports the findings
of a survey of over 250 British managers. While a
self-report questionnaire is not the first method of
choice for qualitative constructivist research
(Stoker, 2003), this approach has the advantages
of generating a sizeable sample without having to
negotiate organizational access, while providing
confidentiality to encourage candid responses
and facilitating comparison of results with previous survey-based research. The study was based
on a purposive opportunity sample, using eight
groups participating in management development programmes directed by the researcher. In
contrast to many previous studies that have
sampled across organizational levels, respondents
here were middle and senior managers, and the
probability of these managers having experience
of organization politics was high. Care was taken
not to pre-sensitize respondents to the survey
contents, and where this was not possible the
instrument was not administered.
The survey instrument guaranteed anonymity
and was designed for ease of completion, with
five sections. The first section asked respondents
to rate 18 behaviours in terms of how often they
had been experienced. Those items were not
derived a priori on theoretical grounds or from
literature (such as the perception of organization
politics scale designed by Kacmar and Ferris,
1991), but relied on a series of tactics that
managers themselves had previously identified
as examples of political behaviour (Buchanan
and Badham, 1999).
Two sections next contained 30 Likert-scaled
items addressing general perceptions of organization politics. Fourth, a further 15 Likert-scaled
items considered aspects of the personal, organizational and change-related consequences of
political behaviour. Finally, respondents were
asked for background and context information
(gender, age range, management level, sector,
nationality, experience of change management,
8
training in politics, qualifications). Items that
could provide identity cues were excluded. In
addition, five ‘true or false’ items explored
sensitive issues relating to interpersonal harm.
A ‘comments box’ invited open remarks; around
10% of respondents used this opportunity. The
sample characteristics were
252 respondents;
from over 107 organizations (some respondents withheld employer’s name);
46% male, 54% female;
68% public sector, 32% private sector;
44% senior managers, 38% middle managers,
15% professional, 3% ‘other’;
78% had no training in dealing with organization politics;
15% indicated that change management was
their full time role;
86% regarded change management as one
dimension of their role;
88% said their organization was under external pressure to change.
One evident sample bias concerns public sector
dominance. However, sectoral differences in
responses were not detected. One explanation is
that the experience of politics is not sectordependent. Vigoda-Gadot and Kapun (2005)
found that public sector employees view their
organizations as more political, unfair and unjust
than private sector employees, but their respondents included a cross-section of occupations
rather than focusing on managers. Respondents
for the study reported here, in contrast, were
managers recruited through management development programmes, suggesting a bias for career
mobility, reinforced by the observation that over
70% had a university degree and over 50% had a
management qualification. The absence of sector
differences may also be explained by the exchange
of managers between sectors and by responses
based on general experience rather than on one
organization. Most respondents also had experience of, and consequently a professional interest
in, organizational change.
Findings
As this survey generated nominal and ordinalscale data, only frequency distributions and
cross-tabulations are reported; no further statis-
D. A. Buchanan
tical analysis was appropriate. Five main themes
emerge, concerning
the management experience;
opinions and beliefs;
organizational effectiveness and change;
performance, reputation and career;
gender differences.
The management experience
The experience of politics seems to be frequent,
visible and sometimes painful. Only 12% agreed
that ‘my organization is relatively free of politics’,
and only 17% agreed that ‘I don’t see much
political behaviour because it happens behind
closed doors’. In contrast with previous studies,
there were no job level differences in responses to
those items (and no gender or sector differences
either). Political behaviour was not seen as a
senior management preserve; 83% agreed that
‘politics is played at all organizational levels’. It is
not surprising, therefore, that 84% agreed that ‘I
am prepared to play politics when necessary’,
87% agreed that ‘politics is a natural part of the
management job’ and 93% agreed that ‘most
managers, if they want to succeed, have to play
politics at least part of the time’. However, over
70% said that they had been hurt by the tactics of
others.
The survey sought to establish the perceived
frequency of 18 political behaviours. The results
suggest a ranking, produced by considering first
the response frequencies for ‘very often’, then the
combined frequencies for ‘very often’ and ‘often’,
and finally the aggregated frequencies for ‘very
often’, ‘often’ and ‘sometimes’ for each tactic.
This indicates three categories of more common,
less common and rare tactics. At least 68% of
respondents said that they had experienced all
but three of those tactics at least ‘sometimes’.
Five behaviours were perceived as occurring
more frequently: building a network of useful
contacts, using ‘key players’ to support initiatives, making friends with power brokers,
bending the rules to fit the situation, and selfpromotion. Three tactics were rated as relatively
rare: using misinformation to confuse others,
spreading false rumours to undermine others,
and keeping ‘dirt files’ to blackmail others. These
results do not indicate the actual incidence of
political tactics, but reflect management percep-
9
You Stab My Back, I’ll Stab Yours
tions of how often such behaviours occur. Asked
whether ‘my organization would benefit from a
higher level of organizational politics’, only 8%
agreed. Whatever the incidence of political
behaviour, it appears that most managers consider that to be too high, confirming previous
studies showing that increases in the perceived
level of politics are linked to lower levels of
job satisfaction, among employees in general
(Harrell-Cook, Ferris and Dulebohn, 1999, p. 1095).
Opinions and beliefs
Respondents were asked to indicate which of four
statements most accurately reflected their opinion
of organization politics (Table 2). Almost twothirds saw politics as an aspect of their role which
they had to understand, but which they preferred
to avoid. There were no job level differences in
response to these items. However, women were
more likely to choose ‘understand but avoid’
(69%) than men (56%), who were more likely to
respond with ‘necessary to play’ (38% compared
with 24%). Only 27% agreed that ‘winning the
political game is an intensely satisfying personal
experience’ (with no gender or job level differences). Asked if ‘political behaviour is unethical’,
only 12% agreed (2% strongly), with 67% in
disagreement. Consequently, 88% of respondents
felt either that political behaviour was unethical
or were unsure. Nevertheless, two comments
described politics as ‘evil’.
Organization politics is a ‘necessary evil’ but need
not necessarily be seen as a wholly negative
concept. Often it is the informal route by which
legitimate objectives are achieved. In my experience, organizational politics is a fact of life. (Senior
manager, manufacturing, male, age 30–39)
I dislike it intensely, but recognize it as an evil
others make me engage in. (Middle manager, public
sector hospital, male, age 30–39)
Table 2
I don’t want to be involved in organization politics,
but it is necessary to understand what is going on
I believe it is necessary to play politics to achieve
my objectives and enhance my reputation
I play politics because it is challenging and fun and is
an important motivator for me
I ignore politics because it is unethical, demotivating,
unacceptable and would damage my reputation
63%
31%
Are political tactics considered inappropriate in
some circumstances? Around 80% indicated that
they were not prepared to hurt others with
political tactics, and over 80% denied that they
had hurt others in this way. However, there were
interesting gender differences in responses to
these ‘true–false’ items. Reflecting conventional
‘tough and tender’ stereotypes, a higher proportion of men said that they were prepared to hurt
others to achieve personal and organizational
goals, and men were more likely to admit that
they had hurt others. However, women were
more likely to agree that playing politics had
contributed to their career (Table 3).
Not all political behaviour is a source of
discomfort; 65% agreed that ‘some managers
play politics just for fun’. On the item ‘most
managers dislike playing politics’, the sample was
divided, with only 17% agreement, 34% unsure
and 50% in disagreement (2% strongly). Asked
whether ‘life without organization politics would
be boring’, 38% agreed (with 21% unsure, 41%
in disagreement), and only 32% agreed that ‘my
ideal organization is one with no politics’ (with
21% unsure and 48% in disagreement). It thus
appears that between one-third and a half of
respondents held broadly positive views of
organization politics.
With 81% and 75% agreement respectively
that ‘I am prepared to play politics when
necessary’ and ‘I engage in political behaviour
when necessary to achieve my objectives’, responses to two additional items indicate a more
calculating perspective. For example, 72% agreed
that ‘a manager has to be ruthless sometimes’,
and 89% agreed (16% strongly) that ‘those who
use political tactics should expect to have similar
tactics used against them’ (with no gender
differences in responses to those items). This
consistent response pattern suggests that political
tactics are considered justified in some contexts,
that causing harm is less acceptable and that
‘ruthless reciprocity’ is perceived appropriate,
implying an attitude of ‘you stab my back, I’ll
stab yours’. How can willing ruthlessness be
reconciled with the desire to avoid hurting
others? This sentiment is perhaps captured by
the following comment.
3%
3%
While I ‘agreed’ with it, I don’t feel comfortable
with the word ruthless, as there is an element of
10
D. A. Buchanan
Table 3
Male ‘true’
response (%)
My willingness to play organization politics has contributed to my career success
If necessary to achieve organizational goals, I am prepared to hurt others with political tactics
If necessary to achieve personal goals, I am prepared to hurt others with political tactics
I know that I have hurt others with my use of political tactics
vindictiveness implied by the word. (Senior manager, public sector hospital, male, age 30–39)
One explanation is that ruthlessness is equated
more with impersonal management actions (closing facilities, cutting budgets, declaring redundancies), while hurting another individual is
personal, and is more difficult to do – or to
admit to doing.
How do senior management actions influence
political behaviour? It appears that senior management are believed to be more involved in
political behaviour, with 87% agreeing that ‘the
higher you go in the organization, the more
political the climate becomes’. Senior managers
appear also to be regarded as role models, with
84% agreeing that ‘when the top team play
politics, other managers follow their example’.
There were no job level differences in responses to
those items. However, while 23% agreed that
‘senior management could stop the politics if they
wanted to’, senior managers appeared less
confident than middle managers of their ability
to do so, with 72% of senior managers compared with 45% of middle managers expressing
disagreement.
Does the incidence of political behaviour vary?
Only 21% indicated that ‘the level of organization politics is constant’, and 77% agreed that
‘the degree of political behaviour varies over
time’. Does organizational change intensify
political activity? Only 20% agreed that ‘you
only see high levels of politics during periods of
organizational change’. There were no sectoral
differences in response to those items. Respondents were asked to indicate whether ‘there is
more organization politics today than five years
ago’; 49% agreed. However, more public sector
respondents (52%) agreed that there were ‘more
politics’ than private sector managers (43%).
These findings are inconclusive, contradicting the
thesis of Kumar and Thibodeaux (1990) and
indicating that further investigation of factors
Female ‘true’
response (%)
45
31
31
26
55
14
11
14
influencing political intensity might be a fruitful
topic for further investigation.
Organizational effectiveness and change
Do managers regard politics as a useful tool, or
as an impediment, with respect to implementing
change and improving organizational effectiveness? The findings indicate that the answer is
contingent on the way in which tactics are
deployed. On the one hand, 85% agreed (26%
strongly) that ‘I have seen organization politics
damage organizational effectiveness’. But more
than half of respondents (53%) had experienced politics contributing to organizational
effectiveness.
The significance of political behaviour in
change appears to be widely acknowledged:
60% agreed that ‘politics become more
important as organizational change becomes
more complex’;
79% agreed that ‘politics can be used to
initiate and drive useful change initiatives’;
81% agreed that ‘political tactics can be
effective in dealing with resistance to change’;
85% agreed that ‘major changes need to be
‘‘steered’’ through the organization politics’;
and
93% agreed (21% strongly) that ‘politics can
be used to slow down and block useful change
initiatives’.
Only 24% felt (4% strongly) that ‘major changes
must be free from organization politics if they are
to be effective’. In addition, only 9% agreed with
the item ‘change agents who avoid organization
politics are more likely to succeed in their roles’.
As other studies have suggested (Buchanan, 2003;
Ferris et al., 2000), the effectiveness of organizational change is dependent, at least in part, on the
political skill of change drivers, agents, catalysts
or leaders.
11
You Stab My Back, I’ll Stab Yours
Performance, reputation, career
The view that political skill is central to personal
reputation and career, as well as to aspects of
management performance, also seems to be
widely recognized. The findings suggest that
managers who ignore organization politics may
damage their reputations, their careers and also
the sections for which they are responsible. As
noted earlier, over 90% agreed (19% strongly)
with the item ‘most managers, if they want to
succeed, have to play politics at least part of the
time’. This is broadly consistent with the 72%
disagreement with the item ‘it is not possible to
do a good job and play politics at the same time’:
90% agreed that ‘managers who play organization politics well can improve their career
prospects’;
81% agreed that ‘personal reputations can be
enhanced by appropriate political game playing’;
75% agreed that ‘the departments of skilled
organization politicians attract higher levels of
resource’; and
60% agreed that ‘managers who are not
prepared to play politics see their careers
suffer’.
There were no gender differences in responses to
those four items. Responses to three other items
indicate the potential risks in avoiding organization politics:
(47%) was ‘unsure’. A higher proportion of
women (52%) than men (41%) disagreed with
this item. Also, 27% agreed that ‘men play more
political games than women’; the modal response
(41%) was again ‘unsure’. However, more
women (31%) agreed that men play more
political games than men do (18%). These results
are inconclusive. One possibility is that there are
no gender differences; the motives, organizational
infrastructures and access to resources are
equivalent for all players in the politics game.
Another explanation is that the differences are
too subtle and complex for a survey questionnaire to capture. Other responses indicate that,
while women are as willing as men to engage in
politics, women express more concern for potential interpersonal harm. While Kanter (1979) and
Mann (1995) argue that women are disadvantaged in the acquisition of organizational power,
Arroba and James (1988) argue that women need
to be politically aware and ‘wise’, exploiting
innate advantages such as intuition, sensitivity,
observation and a willingness to engage with
feelings. Recent anecdotal evidence, however,
suggests that many women reject management
roles because of their distaste for political
behaviour (Arkin, 2004).
When necessity commands:
actor-theory-in-use
83% agreed that ‘departments in my organization use politics to try and win the competition
for resources’;
71% agreed that ‘managers who don’t play
politics are pushed aside by those who do’;
and
71% agreed that ‘the departments of managers
who are politically unskilled suffer in resource
terms’.
My view is that organizational politics are almost
inevitable, but they can be constructive or destructive. The best management skills would seek to
ensure that constructive uses, such as attraction of
resources, or changed working practices, are
delivered through using supportive political skills
(especially with external partners). The worst skills
are tantamount to bullying and dishonesty which
should not be condoned. (Middle manager, public
sector hospital, female, age 30–39)
There would appear to be a widespread perception that managers unable or unwilling to engage
in organization politics jeopardize the resourcing
of the sections for which they are responsible, as
well as their careers.
Table 4 summarizes the findings from this study,
following the format of the ‘antecedents–behaviours–consequences’ framework in Table 1. It is
important to repeat that, unlike the model
developed by Kacmar and Ferris (1991) and
Ferris et al. (2002a), designed to be subject to
objective empirical test, the framework in Table 4
illustrates the subjective understanding of respondents concerning the triggers, behaviours
and outcomes of organization politics. In other
Gender differences
Only 13% agreed that ‘women are better at
playing politics than men’; the modal response
12
D. A. Buchanan
Table 4. Perceived antecedents, behaviours and consequences of organization politics (research summary)
Antecedents of political behaviour
Individual
Achieve objectives
Fun, motivating
Ruthless reciprocity
Necessary evil
Contextual
Achieve objectives
Prompting by others
Management level
Senior management role models
Complexity of organizational change
Behaviours, political strategies, tactics
Common
Less common
Building a network of useful contacts Finding someone else to blame for mistakes
Using key players to support initiatives Claiming credit for the work of others
Making friends with power brokers
Bending the rules to fit the situation
Self-promotion
Conceding minor issues to win major goals
Using social settings to discover opinions
Using others to deliver bad news
Deliberately withholding useful information
Highlighting other people’s errors and flaws
Using delaying tactics to block others
Breaking the rules to achieve objectives
Compromising now to win future favours
Consequences of uses of political behaviour
Rare
Using misinformation to confuse others
Spreading false rumours to undermine
others
Keeping dirt files to blackmail others
Functional
Individual
Succeed as a change agent
Enhance personal reputation
Improve career prospects
Dysfunctional
Individual
Personal injury
Pushed aside by better players
Departmental resourcing suffers
Organizational
Contribute to organizational effectiveness
‘Steer’ useful change initiatives
Deal with resistance to change
Win competition for resources
Organizational
Damaged organizational effectiveness
Block organizational change
Delay organizational change
words, Table 4 codifies the actor-theory-in-use
that managers appear to use with respect to
organization politics.
This evidence confirms that the use of political
tactics is perceived to be widespread, generating
both beneficial and dysfunctional individual and
organizational outcomes (Drory, 1993; Ferris
and Kacmar, 1992; Gandz and Murray, 1980).
While this study was not designed to test theory
linking the triggers, substance and outcomes
of political behaviour, it is instructive to consider the findings under those headings, with
regard to antecedents, consequences and further
research.
Antecedents
The results with regard to the factors that are
perceived to trigger political behaviour confirm
previous studies, suggesting a combination of
individual and contextual factors, but including
fun, motivation and reciprocity, as individual
triggers, and change complexity, political actions
of others, managerial level and senior management role modelling, as organizational triggers.
Political behaviour seems to be widely perceived
as a ‘necessary evil’, but ethical considerations
appear to present no barrier to the deployment of
such tactics for most respondents. While most
agreed that they were prepared to play politics to
achieve objectives, around two-thirds (but a
higher proportion of women than men) indicated
that, although it was important to understand
this aspect of organizational behaviour, they
would prefer to avoid it. Most would like their
organizations to be less political. Over two-thirds
claimed that political tactics had caused them
injury, and most indicated that they gained no
satisfaction from winning a political exchange.
Women appear to engage in political tactics as
readily as men, but seem less prepared to hurt
13
You Stab My Back, I’ll Stab Yours
others; a higher proportion of men admitted to
injuring others through political tactics. Given
the pervasive nature of organization politics, and
the range of precipitating conditions, calls to
depoliticize management behaviour (Klein, 1988;
Stone, 1997) imply an agenda which even senior
managers would find challenging.
This evidence suggests that previous studies
may have underestimated the readiness of managers to overcome their ambivalence, and ‘to
enter into evil when necessity commands’
(Machiavelli, 1961, ch. xviii). The consistently
high degrees of willingness to engage in politics,
to act ruthlessly, and to reciprocate in kind when
dealing with others who use political tactics imply
an attitude of ‘you stab my back, I’ll stab yours’.
Indeed, that ambivalence may be significantly
diluted by the perception that organization
politics is necessary, ethical and fun.
Behaviours
Previous studies have focused only on common
political tactics. The evidence from this study
confirms the richness of the behaviour repertoire
in this respect, while indicating the perceived
prevalence of different tactics. Five tactics were
perceived to be more common: building networks, using ‘key players’, befriending power
brokers, bending rules, and self-promotion.
Three tactics were seen as rare (but not unknown): using misinformation to confuse,
spreading rumours to undermine, and keeping
‘dirt files’ to blackmail others. Considering those
common and rare tactics, interpersonal manipulation and impression management may be
perceived as socially more acceptable and less
hurtful than behaviours which involve dishonesty
and coercion.
Consequences
Again confirming previous studies, organization
politics is perceived to generate a combination
of functional and dysfunctional individual and
organizational outcomes. The impact of politics
on change and organizational effectiveness appears to be widely recognized, blocking or driving
initiatives, of value in handling resistance to
change, and disrupting or contributing to effectiveness (itself an ambivalent and politically
charged concept). Most managers thus believe
that change agents must be politically skilled.
Extending the findings of Gandz and Murray
(1980), most managers attribute success in
reputation, career and resourcing, at least in
part, to the exercise of political skill. Graham’s
(1996) attempt to establish a link between
political skill and career may have foundered on
the narrow measures used to operationalize skill
(‘Mach IV’ scores) and success (salary). In-depth
qualitative studies of behaviours and outcomes
may reveal other links and outcomes.
Theoretical implications
The evidence suggests that the political theory of
organization held by most managers incorporates
the following propositions. First, political behaviour may be precipitated by a combination of
individual and contextual factors, and is not
necessarily perceived to be self-serving. Second,
the behaviour repertoire of the organization
politician is diverse, and while ‘social’ tactics
may be perceived as more acceptable than covert
manipulation, most managers see no ethical
impediments to the use of political tactics. Third,
political behaviour is not necessarily seen as
damaging, but is perceived to generate both
functional and dysfunctional individual and
organizational consequences. While perhaps capturing the essence of current understanding in
this field, these broad propositions leave several
significant questions unanswered.
This study has considerable limitations. The
survey approach has a number of advantages but
still represents a methodological compromise.
Survey methods struggle to capture the dynamics
of political games unfolding through a series of
overt and covert manipulations and influence
attempts, involving shifting combinations of
individuals and coalitions (Bacharach and Lawler, 1998). A questionnaire cannot explore in
depth the temporal and contextual dimensions of
those processes. Survey methods can only
sketch the outlines, revealing broad patterns
and trends, and indicate issues for further study,
with different samples, deploying other research
methods. The sample is purposive and nonrandom, displaying a bias towards the public
sector and to well-qualified managers with
experience of organizational change; statistical
generalizations to a wider population cannot be
confident.
14
Nevertheless, it is reasonable to consider the
transferability (Lincoln and Guba, 1985) of the
findings from this study to the wider management
population. Confidence in that transfer is
strengthened by the consistency of the response
patterns, and by the extent to which the results of
previous studies (rooted in a contrasting epistemology) are broadly supported. Confirmation of
the findings from previous research suggests a
degree of shared experience across different
cultural and organizational settings. It is also
reasonable to invite management readers to
compare the resultant codified theory-in-use with
their own perceptions and experiences (Stake,
1994, describes this process of reflection as
naturalistic generalization). It is perhaps also
reasonable to speculate with regard to the
practical implications that arise should that
actor-theory-in-use indeed be widely held by
other managers.
A number of further lines of enquiry are thus
indicated. As this topic has been studied mainly
from a positivist perspective, the discursive
processes through which behaviours come to be
labelled as political, attributed with political
intent, and socially constructed as political
remain unexplored. The nature and significance
of gender differences in this domain are not well
understood, either by researchers or, it seems, by
managers. While political behaviour is perceived
to vary in intensity, little is known about the
triggering and dampening mechanisms that are
perceived to cause variation. Political skill is
perceived to be central to the role of change
agent, and while Ferris, Buckley and Allen (1992)
advocate a ‘balance’ between ‘pure politician’
and ‘demonstrated ability’, little is known about
the development of that balance, presumably
acquired as an individual’s moral standards and
ideals are tested and compromised by organizational realities (Jackall, 1988; Provis, 2004).
Mainiero’s (1994) study of female American
senior managers is an exception in this regard.
While reputation and career success are attributed to political skill, the conditions and processes through which political behaviours affect
reputation are unclear. There appear to be no
cross-cultural comparisons of management experience and perceptions of organization politics.
Critically, little is understood concerning the
combinations of circumstances in which the
functional consequences of political behaviour,
D. A. Buchanan
individual and organizational, are produced.
While large-n quantitative research may be
appropriate in some settings, the more subtle
aspects of the nature, processes and implications
of organization political behaviour may be more
effectively revealed using innovative small-n
qualitative methods.
Concern with value-driven ethical leadership
appears to have done little to reduce either the
perceived incidence or significance of political
behaviour. Assuming that these findings may
indeed apply to the wider management population, what implications for practice emerge?
Management selection, particularly for changerelated roles, should consider candidates’
political as well as professional competencies.
Understanding organization politics without personal involvement may not be a good option for
managers in general, or for change agents in
particular, concerned with reputation and career.
Those following Zaleznik (1997), focusing on
‘real work’, avoiding ‘psychopolitics’, may jeopardize the flow of resources to their sections,
damage their reputations for ‘getting things done’
and limit their promotion prospects. Business
schools and others engaged in management
development may identify opportunity in the
finding that, despite the significance of this
component of management and change agency
roles, almost 80% of respondents said they had
no training in dealing with organization politics.
References
Allen, R. W., D. L. Madison, L. W. Porter, P. A. Renwick and
B. T. Mayes (1979). ‘Organizational politics: tactics and
characteristics of its actors’, California Management Review,
22 (1), pp. 77–83.
Arkin, A. (2004). ‘The fairer sex’, People Management, 10 (20),
pp. 40–42.
Arroba, T. and K. James (1988). ‘Are politics palatable to
women managers? How women can make wise moves at
work’, Women in Management Review, 3 (3), pp. 123–130.
Astley, W. G. and P. S. Sachdeva (1984). ‘Structural sources of
intraorganizational power: a theoretical synthesis’, Academy
of Management Review, 9 (1), pp. 104–113.
Bacharach, S. B. and E. J. Lawler (1981). Power and Politics in
Organizations: The Social Psychology of Conflict, Coalitions,
and Bargaining. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Bacharach, S. B. and E. J. Lawler (1998). ‘Political alignments
in organizations: contextualization, mobilization, and coordination’. In R. M. Kramer and M. A. Neale (eds), Power
and Influence in Organizations, pp. 67–88. Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage.
You Stab My Back, I’ll Stab Yours
Buchanan, D. A. (1999). ‘The logic of political action:
an experiment with the epistemology of the particular’,
British Journal of Management, 10 (special conference issue),
pp. 73–88.
Buchanan, D. (2003). ‘Demands, instabilities, manipulations,
careers: the lived experience of driving change’, Human
Relations, 56 (6), pp. 663–684.
Buchanan, D. and R. Badham (1999). Power, Politics and
Organizational Change: Winning the Turf Game. London:
Sage.
Burns, T. (1961). ‘Micropolitics: mechanisms of institutional
change’, Administrative Science Quarterly, 55, pp. 257–281.
Butcher, D. and M. Clarke (1999). ‘Organizational politics: the
missing discipline of management?’, Industrial and Commercial Training, 31 (1), pp. 9–12.
Calhoon, R. P. (1969). ‘Nicolo Machiavelli and the 20th
century administrator’, Academy of Management Journal, 12
(2), pp. 205–212.
Chanlat, J.-F. (1997). ‘Conflict and politics’. In A. Sorge and
M. Warner (eds), Handbook of Organizational Behaviour,
pp. 472–480. London: International Thomson.
Christie, R. and F. L. Geiss (1970). Studies in Machiavellianism.
New York: Academic Press.
Cobb, A. T. (1986). ‘Political diagnosis: applications in
organizational development’, Academy of Management Review, 11 (3), pp. 482–496.
Dawson, P. (2003). Reshaping Change: A Processual Approach.
London: Routledge.
Deetz, S. (1996). ‘Describing differences in approaches to
organization science: rethinking Burrell and Morgan and
their legacy’, Organization Science, 7 (2), pp. 191–207.
Drory, A. (1993). ‘Perceived political climate and job attitudes’,
Organization Studies, 14 (1), pp. 59–71.
Drory, A. and T. Romm (1988). ‘Politics in organization and its
perception within the organization’, Organization Studies,
9 (2), pp. 165–179.
Drory, A. and T. Romm (1990). ‘The definition of organizational politics: a review’, Human Relations, 43 (11),
pp. 1133–1154.
Egan, G. (1994). Working the Shadow Side: A Guide to Positive
Behind-the-Scenes Management. San Francisco, CA: JosseyBass.
Eisenhardt, K. M. and L. J. Bourgeois (1988). ‘Politics of
strategic decision making in high-velocity environments:
towards a mid-range theory’, Academy of Management
Journal, 31 (4), pp. 737–770.
Ferris, G. R. and K. M. Kacmar (1992). ‘Perceptions of
organizational politics’, Journal of Management, 18 (1), pp.
93–116.
Ferris, G. R. and T. R. King (1991). ‘Politics in human
resources decisions: a walk on the dark side’, Organizational
Dynamics, 20 (2), pp. 59–71.
Ferris, G. R., M. R. Buckley and G. M. Allen (1992).
‘Promotion systems in organizations’, Human Resource
Planning, 15 (3), pp. 47–68.
Ferris, G. R., D. D. Frink, M. C. Galang, J. Zhou, M. Kacmar
and J. L. Howard (1996). ‘Perceptions of organizational
politics: prediction, stress-related implications, and outcomes’, Human Relations, 49 (2), pp. 233–266.
Ferris, G. R., P. L. Perrewé, W. P. Anthony and D. C. Gilmore
(2000). ‘Political skill at work’, Organizational Dynamics, 28
(4), pp. 25–37.
15
Ferris, G. R., G. Adams, R. W. Kolodinsky, W. A. Hochwarter
and A. P. Ammeter (2002a). ‘Perceptions of organizational
politics: theory and research directions’, Research in Multilevel Issues, Vol. 1: The Many Faces of Multi-level Issues,
pp. 179–254. Amsterdam: Elsevier Science.
Ferris, G. R., W. A. Hochwarter, C. Douglas, F. R. Blass,
R. W. Kolodinsky and D. C. Treadway (2002b). ‘Social
influence processes in organizations and human resource
systems’, Research in Personnel and Human Resources
Management, 21, pp. 65–127.
Frost, P. J. and C. P. Egri (1991). ‘The political process of
innovation’. In L. L. Cummings and B. M. Staw (eds),
Research in Organizational Behaviour, pp. 229–295. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Gandz, J. and V. V. Murray (1980). ‘The experience of
workplace politics’, Academy of Management Journal, 23,
pp. 237–251.
Graham, J. H. (1996). ‘Machiavellian project managers: do they
perform better?’, International Journal of Project Management, 14 (2), pp. 67–74.
Hardy, C. (1996). ‘Understanding power: bringing about
strategic change’, British Journal of Management, 7 (special
conference issue), pp. 3–16.
Harrell-Cook, G., G. R. Ferris and J. H. Dulebohn (1999).
‘Political behaviors as moderators of the perceptions of
organizational politics–work outcomes relationships’, Journal of Organizational Behaviour, 20 (7), pp. 1093–1105.
Harrison, E. F. (1987). The Management Decision-Making
Process. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.
Hickson, D. J., C. R. Hinings, C. A. Lee, R. E. Schneck and
J. M. Pennings (1971). ‘A strategic contingencies theory of
intra-organizational power’, Administrative Science Quarterly, 16 (2), pp. 216–219.
Jackall, R. (1988). Moral Mazes: The World of Corporate
Managers. New York: Oxford University Press.
Kacmar, K. M. and D. S. Carlson (1997). ‘Further validation
of the perceptions of politics scale (POPS): a multiple
sample investigation’, Journal of Management, 23 (5),
pp. 627–658.
Kacmar, K. M. and G. R. Ferris (1991). ‘Perceptions of
organizational politics scale (POPS): development and
construct validation’, Educational and Psychological Measurement, 51 (1), pp. 193–205.
Kanter, R. M. (1979). ‘Power failure in management circuits’,
Harvard Business Review, 57(4), pp. 65–75.
Keen, P. G. W. (1981). ‘Information systems and organizational change’, Communications of the ACM, 24 (1),
pp. 24–33.
Kipnis, D., S. M. Schmidt, C. Swaffin-Smith and I. Wilkinson
(1984). ‘Patterns of managerial influence: shotgun managers,
tacticians and bystanders’, Organizational Dynamics, 12 (3),
pp. 58–67.
Klein, J. I. (1988). ‘The myth of the corporate political jungle:
politicization as a political strategy’, Journal of Management
Studies, 25 (1), pp. 1–12.
Kumar, K. and M. Thibodeaux (1990). ‘Organizational politics
and planned organizational change’, Group and Organizational Studies, 15 (4), pp. 357–365.
Lincoln, Y. S. and E. Guba (1985). Naturalistic Inquiry. Beverly
Hills, CA: Sage.
Machiavelli, N. (1961). The Prince (G. Bull, trans.) London:
Penguin.
16
Madison, D. L., R. W. Allen, L. W. Porter, P. A. Renwick and
B. T. Mayes (1980). ‘Organizational politics: an exploration of managers’ perceptions’, Human Relations, 33 (2), pp.
79–100.
Mainiero, L. A. (1994). ‘On breaking the glass ceiling: the
political seasoning of powerful women executives’, Organizational Dynamics, 22 (4), pp. 5–20.
Mangham, I. (1979). The Politics of Organizational Change.
Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.
Mann, S. (1995). ‘Politics and power in organizations; why
women lose out’, Leadership and Organization Development
Journal, 16 (2), pp. 9–15.
McClelland, D. C. and D. H. Burnham (1995). ‘Power is the great
motivator’, Harvard Business Review, 73 (1), pp. 126–139.
Mintzberg, H. (1983). Power in and around Organizations.
Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Mintzberg, H. (1985). ‘The organization as political arena’,
Journal of Management Studies, 22, pp. 133–154.
Mohr, L. B. (1982). Explaining Organizational Behaviour: The
Limits and Possibilities of Theory and Research. San
Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
O’Connor, E. S. (1995). ‘Paradoxes of participation: textual
analysis and organizational change’, Organization Studies,
16 (5), pp. 769–803.
Peled, A. (1999). ‘Politicking for success: the missing
skill’, Leadership and Organizational Change, 21 (1), pp.
20–29.
Perrewé, P. L., G. R. Ferris, D. D. Frink and W. P. Anthony
(2000). ‘Political skill: an antidote for workplace stressors’, Academy of Management Executive, 14 (3), pp.
115–123.
Pettigrew, A. M. (1973). The Politics of Organizational
Decision-making. London: Tavistock.
D. A. Buchanan
Pettigrew, A. M. and T. McNulty (1995). ‘Power and influence
in and around the boardroom’, Human Relations, 48 (8), pp.
845–873.
Pfeffer, J. (1992). Managing With Power: Politics and Influence in
Organization. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
Provis, C. (2004). Ethics and Organisational Politics. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
Schrijvers, J. P. M. (2004). The Way of the Rat: A Survival
Guide to Office Politics. London: Cyan Books.
Stake, R. E. (1994). ‘Case studies’. In N. K. Denzin and Y. S.
Lincoln (eds), Handbook of Qualitative Research, pp. 236–
247. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Stoker, L. (2003). ‘Is it possible to do quantitative survey
research in an interpretive way?’, Qualitative Methods, 1 (2),
pp. 13–16.
Stone, B. (1997). Confronting Company Politics. Basingstoke:
Macmillan Business.
Valle, M and P. L. Perrewé (2000). ‘Do politics perceptions
relate to political behaviours?: tests of an implicit assumption and expanded model’, Human Relations, 53 (3),
pp. 359–386.
Vigoda, E. (2003). Developments in Organizational Politics:
How Political Dynamics Affect Employee Performance in
Modern Work Sites. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
Vigoda-Gadot, E. and D. Kapun (2005). ‘Perceptions of politics
and perceived performance in public and private organizations: a test of one model across two sectors’, Policy and
Politics, 33 (2), pp. 251–276.
Voyer, J. J. (1994). ‘Coercive organizational politics and
organizational outcomes: an interpretive study’, Organization
Science, 5 (1), pp. 72–85.
Zaleznik, A. (1997). ‘Real work’, Harvard Business Review,
75 (6), pp. 53–63.
David Buchanan is Professor of Organizational Behaviour at Cranfield University School of
Management. He holds degrees in business administration and organizational behaviour from
Heriot-Watt and Edinburgh Universities respectively. He is the author of numerous books and
papers on aspects of organizational behaviour. Current research interests include change agency and
change management, factors influencing the sustainability and spread of organizational changes,
organization politics, and governance systems in healthcare.